Gibson v. East Alabama Medical Center

Filing 18

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/2/15. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
CARON GIBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EAST ALABAMA MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:14cv725-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
This case is currently before the court on plaintiff
Caron

Gibson’s

Center’s

joint

and
motion

defendant
for

East

approval

Alabama
of

Medical

settlement

of

Gibson’s claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.1

Based on the evidence presented

at a hearing on July 1, 2015, and for the reasons that
follow, the motion will be granted and the settlement
approved.

1. Gibson also brought a claim under the Family and
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, based on her
termination.
The parties resolved this claim in a
separate settlement.

Because the FLSA was enacted to protect workers from
the poor wages and long hours that can result from great
inequalities in bargaining power between employers and
employees,

the

FLSA's

provisions

are

mandatory

and,

except in two narrow circumstances, are generally not
subject

to

bargaining,

contract or settlement.

waiver,

or

modification

by

Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil,

324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).

The first exception is that

the Secretary of Labor may supervise the payment of back
wages to employees; employees who accept such payments
waive their rights to bring suits for liquidated damages,
provided the employer pays the back amount in full.
U.S.C.

§ 216(c);

Lynn's

Food

Stores,

Inc.

v.

29

United

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 1982).
The second route to a FLSA settlement, and the one
that is applicable here, occurs when an employee brings a
private action for back wages under 29 U.S.C § 216(b),
the employee and employer present a proposed settlement
to the district court, and the district court reviews the
settlement and enters “a stipulated judgment” based on
it.

Lynn's

Food

Stores,
2

679

F.2d

at

1354-1355

(“Settlements may be permissible in the context of a suit
brought

by

employees

because

initiation

under

of

the

the

FLSA

action

for

by

back

the

wages

employees

provides some assurance of an adversarial context.

The

employees are likely to be represented by an attorney who
can protect their rights under the statute.

Thus, when

the

court

parties

approval, the
reasonable

submit

a

settlement

to

the

settlement is more likely

compromise

of

disputed

issues

for

to reflect
than

a

a

mere

waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's
overreaching.”).
In reviewing a settlement of a FLSA private claim, a
court must “scrutiniz[e] the settlement for fairness,”
id. at 1353, and determine that the settlement is a “fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over
FLSA provisions.”

Id. at 1355.

“If a settlement in an

employee FLSA suit does reflect a reasonable compromise
over issues, such as FLSA coverage or computation of back
wages, that are actually in dispute[,] ... the district
court [may] approve the settlement in order to promote
the policy of encouraging settlement of litigation.”
3

Id.

at 13542; see also Stalnaker v. Novar Corp., 293 F. Supp.
2d 1260, 1262-63 (M.D. Ala. 2003) (Thompson, J.).
In this case, Gibson claimed that she was denied
overtime pay for working before her shift started and
working

through

determined
shift,
breaks.
which
worked.

that

the

only

lunch
she

breaks.

was

paid

remaining

After

for

FLSA

the

working

issue

was

parties

before
her

her

lunch

Specifically, Gibson worked over 500 lunches,
allegedly

were

not

counted

towards

her

hours

The parties settled this claim for $ 4,400.

Of

this $ 4,400, Gibson will receive $ 3,000 and her counsel
will receive

$ 1,000 in attorney’s fees

and $ 400 in

costs.3

2. In Lynn's Food Stores, the proposed compromise
came not from an employee lawsuit, but rather from an
attempt by an employer to “settle” backpay claims because
of a pending investigation by the Secretary of Labor;
the court disallowed the “compromise” because it was
unfair
and
reflected
the
extreme
inequalities
of
bargaining position against which the FLSA was designed
to protect. 679 F.2d at 1355.
3.
Gibson will also receive $ 100 for her FMLA
retaliation claim, which is not before this court.
See
supra note 1.
4

After

speaking

with

Gibson

and

reviewing

the

settlement agreement at the July 1 hearing, the court
concludes that the settlement is a fair and reasonable
resolution of this case.

There are bona fide disputes

over FLSA provisions, including whether Gibson was exempt
under the statute, whether she is entitled to recover
liquidated damages, and whether her claims are barred by
the statute of limitations.

Further,

as all parties

agree, the $ 3,000 is reasonable compensation for the
hours that she worked during her lunch break for which
she originally was not compensated.
***
Based on the settlement, the parties have stipulated
to a judgment dismissing this case.

That judgment will

be entered.
DONE, this the 2nd day of July, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE